The only log is a temporary debug log, which we're using to investigate
some bug reports. They're only accessible to people with shell access to
the production servers -- Foundation staff, and people who have signed
non-disclosure agreements. We won't retain them for longer than ninety
days.

Hello everyone,
The next Wikimedia Foundation metrics and activities meeting will take
place on Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 6:00 PM UTC (11 AM PDT). The IRC
channel is #wikimedia-office on irc.freenode.net, and the meeting will be
broadcast as a live YouTube stream.[1]
During the August metrics

Neat feature.
Who has access to the logs, and for how long will the logs be retained?
Thanks,
Fae
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LGBT+
http://telegram.me/wmlgbt
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 1:38 AM, Lisa Gruwell wrote:
>... regarding the Endowment:
>
> 1) I met with Lukas at Wikimania regarding SRI and the endowment. As James
> indicated, the endowment is invested through the Tides Foundation and this
> is one of the areas of

Why are we having this RFC prior to the survey which was discussed at
length less than a year ago?
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:James_Salsman#Periodic_survey_prototype
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Robert Fernandez
wrote:
> Since Rogol has followed

Thanks, it is a great feature! Especially to easily find the Ref tags.
And it work just fine for me, technically.
Anders
Den 2017-08-23 kl. 20:41, skrev Danny Horn:
Hi everyone,
I've got some good news -- wikitext syntax highlighting is live again, and
I'm almost completely sure it's

Hi Peter,
This is the first time I've heard about that happening, thanks for bringing
it up. Can you say more about what you're experiencing? I don't think
syntax highlighting gives an error message like that, so I'm not sure what
you mean.
Danny
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 2:31 AM, Peter Southwood

"Since you are unable to imagine many actions more chilling than reporting
bullying and harassment to an appropriate authority, let me suggest
something that might be equally chilling -- calling for the banning from
the list of someone because you disagree with what they have to say."
That wasn't

Robert
If someone posts to an email discussion list owned and run by their
employer, using an email account provided by their employer, with a
signature block giving the name of their employer and their name and
position with that employer, and if their line manager is not only a
regular reader

Since Rogol has followed through on his threat he should be banned from the
list, or we should have a public statement from the moderators regarding
why they will not do so.
I can't imagine many actions that would have a more chilling effect on
participation here than one of this list's most

Hey Fæ,
Considering your proposal, on one hand I'm not sure using Wikimedia
resources to create Yet Another Forum for discussion would provide any
benefit to the movement. We're fractured enough as it is. Especially
given that this proposal is to make a more inviting atmosphere for
_all_

Since you kindly emailed my line manage Rogol, I wanted to confirm that my
choice of words were very carefully chosen.
And I stand by them.
Seddon
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Rogol Domedonfors
wrote:
> Joseph
>
> I chose my wording quite carefully, and suggest that

Getting back to the proposed rules, the list moderators have always had
flexibility to use judgement. Creating extra bureaucracy is unlikely to be
a healthy 'fix', I would much rather first see the mods take whatever
action they feel is necessary to run a welcoming email list, and only start

1. You misread en:WP:NOTNEWS . The policy doesn't say news is forbidden. It
is that Wikipedia should consider notability and original research concerns
and not act as a newspaper.
Actual wording: "editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date
information within its coverage, and to

Peter,
Fair enough, I agree that the idea that Wikimedia would have been a
success if it'd be made commercial is crazy. "Has it crossed my mind how
much we could have made if it had ads? Sure. But it wouldn’t be the
same." reads to me as just a hypothetical "if it were as it is today
*and* had

Good news indeed.
Is there a way we can stop it from crashing in mid edit and giving unhelpful
advice like get a faster computer or a faster connection? I would not mind
waiting a little longer for it to finish the job. It would be helpful if there
were a user setting which allows longer wait

Sam,
I can't get back to the banner for some reason, so I risk misquoting it. Please
take this into account.
What I find offensive is the implication that the foundation would even have
Wikipedia if they were doing it commercially. I and a significant number of
other contributors would not have

In a recent blog post, "No, we’re not in a post-fact world. On Wikipedia,
facts matter.", the Foundation referred to Wikipedia editors"sharing
breaking news in record time". It is true that the English-language
Wikipedia is increasingly carrying articles about newsworthy events, and
this in spite

Robert,
We were warned, so it would be very strange if we did.
You should survey a different sample to get realistic results.
Or is this a rhetorical question?
Cheers,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Robert

"Offensive" seems a bit over the top! Who's it offending? Seems pretty
okay to me, personally. :-)
Anyway, the only thing I notice with it is that it starts with "We
will..." and then says "When I made..." etc. Shouldn't these pronouns
agree?
—Sam.
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017, at 04:07 PM, Peter

The old style is excessively large and in your face. The new style is almost,
but not quite as bad. The content remains offensive and misleading
Cheers,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Joseph Seddon
Sent:

Anna
Thank you for your thoughtful response -- I regret that numerous other
posters have not chosen to take the same approach. You are quite right
that I believe the the Foundation and its projects need radical change --
revolution if you will -- to become successful. I do not dispute the

Rogol,
Good evening.
In my mind, constructive dialogue is about making *something* work better,
not about making others feel worse. The tricky part is, other people get to
decide whether we make them feel worse. That one is not up to us. Critique
and truly constructive dialogue should be in